90.607
Competency of certain persons as witnesses.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
90.607 Competency of certain persons as witnesses.—
(1)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), the judge presiding at the trial of an action is not competent to testify as a witness in that trial. An objection is not necessary to preserve the point.
(b) By agreement of the parties, the trial judge may give evidence on a purely formal matter to facilitate the trial of the action.
(2)(a) A member of the jury is not competent to testify as a witness in a trial when he or she is sitting as a juror. If the juror is called to testify, the opposing party shall be given an opportunity to object out of the presence of the jury.
(b) Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror is not competent to testify as to any matter which essentially inheres in the verdict or indictment.
History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; s. 22, ch. 78-361; s. 1, ch. 78-379; s. 487, ch. 95-147.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: State v. Hamilton
State v. Hamilton (1991)
“[8] § 90.607(2)(b), Fla. Stat. Ann. (1987) (Law Revision Council Note 1976).”
Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Maler (1991)
“§ 90.607(2)(b), Fla. Stat. Ann. (1987) (Law Revision Council Note 1976).”
Marshall v. State (2003)
“1991); see also § 90.607(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999). [5] However, jurors may testify as to "overt acts which might have prejudicially affected the jury in reaching their own verdict.”
Johnson v. State (1992)
“2d 392 (1988); accord § 90.607(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1985). [5] This rule has also been applied in capital cases.”
Green v. State (2008)
“Green does not demonstrate how he can authenticate the writing allegedly written and signed by Tim Curtis recanting his former testimony that the man who made the slashing gesture was not on the jury. Curtis has invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination,…”
Devoney v. State (1998)
“" § 90.607(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1993). Consistent with the foregoing rule, our courts have been vigilant in prohibiting inquiry into jury deliberations of matters necessarily arising out of the trial.”
Reaves v. State (2002)
“[15] § 90.607(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999) ("Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror is not competent to testify as to any matter which essentially inheres in the verdict or indictment.”
Simpson v. State (2009)
“2d at 502 (quoting § 90.607(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1993)). We conclude that the matters giving rise to juror Cody’s alleged recantation did inhere in the verdicts, and thus her verdicts were not impeachable.”
Keen v. State (1994)
“We cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the article did not influence jurors in some way. In addition, the trial judge compounded the error when she questioned jurors about the article.”
Sireci v. State (1991)
“§ 90.607(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1989); State v.”
Wilding v. State (1996)
“In denying the motion for mistrial, the trial court also relied on the fact that the jurors assured the court that concerns about Wilding having access to their personal information played no part in the verdict.”
Miles v. State (2003)
“Overruling Miles' objection with respect to tainting of the jury Miles then argues he was entitled to a new trial, or at least a juror interview, when the jurors informed the court they feared retribution from Miles. "Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment,…”
— 90.607(1)(a) — 1 case
Perez-Sovias v. State (2012)
— 90.607(2)(b) — 43 cases
State v. Hamilton (1991)
“[8] § 90.607(2)(b), Fla. Stat. Ann. (1987) (Law Revision Council Note 1976).”
Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Maler (1991)
“§ 90.607(2)(b), Fla. Stat. Ann. (1987) (Law Revision Council Note 1976).”
Marshall v. State (2003)
“1991); see also § 90.607(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999). [5] However, jurors may testify as to "overt acts which might have prejudicially affected the jury in reaching their own verdict.”
Johnson v. State (1992)
“2d 392 (1988); accord § 90.607(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1985). [5] This rule has also been applied in capital cases.”
Green v. State (2008)
“Green does not demonstrate how he can authenticate the writing allegedly written and signed by Tim Curtis recanting his former testimony that the man who made the slashing gesture was not on the jury. Curtis has invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination,…”
— 90.607(l)(a) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.